Swish-e home page Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions


Limit search to:
Sort by:
Limit to:
    through    
 Results for ("N.J.S.A. 56:8-2")   1 to 15 of 364 results. Run time: 0.757 seconds | Search time: 0.750 seconds    
 Page:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 25 Next 15
1 William DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc. -- rank: 1000
... Court. The Court considers whether the refund provision contained in N.J.S.A. 56:8- 2.11 provides relief for all violations of the New Jersey ... limited solely to the food-related misrepresentations expressly proscribed in N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.9, which codified another section of the same legislative act ... received or collected from” them by Springpoint. Plaintiffs relied on N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 in seeking that relief. Springpoint moved to dismiss, arguing that N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 applies only to misrepresentations regarding food, as outlined in ... 457 (2023). HELD: The refund provision is limited in scope: N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 provides relief only to victims of food-related fraud ... ” plaintiffs are not entitled to a full refund under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11. 1. From its enactment in 1960, the CFA ...
docket: a-37-22
court: NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2023-01-10
status:
citation:
Document Size: 51997
2 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/supreme/a_92_93_15.opn.html -- rank: 962
... place. In addition to generally alleging unconscionable commercial practices under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, the Dugan plaintiffs and Bozzi allege that the defendant restaurants committed a regulatory violation by contravening N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5. Under that section of the CFA, it is an ... failed to meet their “clearly established” legal responsibilities under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5; they contend that the statute required defendants to ... the CFA by engaging in unconscionable commercial practices contrary to N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. They also assert, among other claims, that TGIF violated a regulatory provision, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5, by selling, attempting to sell, or offering for sale ... purchase.” (citing N.J.S.A. 56:12-15; N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5). The Dugan plaintiffs demand damages, civil penalties, and ...
docket:
court: NJ Superior Court Law/Chancery Division
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size: 210705
3 Debra Dugan v. TGI Fridays, Inc. -- rank: 960
... place. In addition to generally alleging unconscionable commercial practices under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, the Dugan plaintiffs and Bozzi allege that the defendant restaurants committed a regulatory violation by contravening N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5. Under that section of the CFA, it is an ... failed to meet their “clearly established” legal responsibilities under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5; they contend that the statute required defendants to ... the CFA by engaging in unconscionable commercial practices contrary to N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. They also assert, among other claims, that TGIF violated a regulatory provision, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5, by selling, attempting to sell, or offering for sale ... purchase.” (citing N.J.S.A. 56:12-15; N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5). The Dugan plaintiffs demand damages, civil penalties, and ...
docket: a-92-15
court: New Jersey Supreme Court
decided: 2017-10-04
status:
citation:
Document Size: 210799
4 Anthony D’Agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado -- rank: 859
... documents giving rise to an “unconscionable commercial practice” under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. The trial court voided the conveyance to Maldonado and restored ... at issue gave rise to an unconscionable commercial practice under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. Notwithstanding the trial court’s restoration of plaintiffs’ equity in ... and a causal relationship between the two. In accordance with N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, an “unconscionable commercial practice . . . in connection with the sale ... Maldonado committed an unconscionable commercial practice within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. Keeping in mind the deterrent and protective purposes of the ... defendant committed an unconscionable commercial practice within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 and that plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable loss. The court combined ... that defendant had committed an unconscionable commercial practice contrary to N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. It held, however, that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate ...
docket: A-82-11
court: NJ Supreme Court
decided: 2013-10-03
status:
citation:
Document Size: 142176
5 Alex Perez v. Professionally Green, LLC -- rank: 857
... as to whether plaintiffs had suffered an ascertainable loss under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. The case proceeded to trial. At the close of plaintiffs ... plaintiffs in the contract. Plaintiffs alleged that these violations of N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 “resulted in the Plaintiffs having suffered an ascertainable loss ... or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice[.] [ N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.] “Although initially designed to combat ‘sharp practices and ...
docket: A-66-11
court: NJ Supreme Court
decided: 2013-09-12
status:
citation:
Document Size: 89619
6 PETR SHUMILIN v. HILLSIDE ESTATES, INC. -- rank: 781
... Carter-Reed Co., 203 N.J. 496, 521 (2010) (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, 8-19). 'An 'unlawful practice' contravening the CFA may arise ... subsequent performance of' an individual involved in such a transaction. N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 (emphasis added). Contrary to the court's finding plaintiffs' CFA ...
docket: a2682-19
court: NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2023-06-21
status: Unpublished
citation:
Document Size: 54964
7 JOHN McDARBY v. MERCK & CO., INC. -- rank: 778
Original Wordprocessor Version NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0076-07T1 A-0077-07T1 J APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION May 29, 2008 APPELLATE DIVISION OHN McDARBY and IRMA McDARBY, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MERCK & CO., INC ...
docket: A0076-07
court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2008-05-29
status: Published
citation:
Document Size: 249479
8 JOHN McDARBY v. MERCK & CO., INC. -- rank: 778
Original Wordprocessor Version This case can also be found at 401 N.J.Super. 10 or 949 A.2d 223. (NOTE: The status of this decision is Published .) NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0076-07T1 A ...
docket: A0077-07
court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2008-05-29
status: published
citation: 401 N.J.Super. 10 949 A.2d 223
Document Size: 256363
9 Christa Robey and Maureen Reynolds v. SPARC Group, LLC \r\n\t\t \r\n \r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n -- rank: 774
... because they are an “unconscionable commercial practice” proscribed in N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 and because they contravene certain state and federal pricing regulations ... of any material fact with intent that others rely” thereon. N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. We have interpreted the CFA to protect against three forms ...
docket: a_50_22
court: supreme
decided: 2024-03-22
status: Published
citation:
Document Size: 118174
10 STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TRI-WAY KARS, INC -- rank: 772
... Division of Consumer Affairs, alleging "consumer fraud" in violation of N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 without any further elaboration respecting the nature of the consumer ... affirming defendant's conviction for consumer fraud in violation of N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. All fines and penalties were stayed pending appeal. We reverse ... S.A. 56:8-14 (emphasis added). Defendant submits that N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.20, stating that "[t]his act shall not apply to ... 20 is a provision of the "Refund Policy Disclosure Act," N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.14 et seq. , and so the reference to "[t]his ... insufficient to give adequate notice of a CFA violation because N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 proscribes a broad spectrum of conduct. The applicable municipal court ... did on that date. There are multiple ways to violate N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, which provides in pertinent part: The act, use or ...
docket: a1256-07
court: NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2008-08-18
status: published
citation: 402 N.J.Super. 215 953 A.2d 766
Document Size: 76808
11 David Spade v. Select Comfort Corp. -- rank: 765
... commercial practices that give rise to a cause of action, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, the Legislature envisioned that the Attorney General would specifically identify ...
docket: a_57_16
court: NJ Supreme Court
decided: 2018-04-16
status:
citation:
Document Size: 62132
12 DEBRA DUGAN v. TGI FRIDAY'S, INC -- rank: 746
... bait and switch" and (2) an unlawful practice countermanded by N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5 (requiring all merchandise sold at retail to be accompanied ... to the exclusion of the CFA; (2) the CFA (specifically, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5) does not require price disclosure of beverages on menus ... the sale or advertisement of [such] merchandise or real estate[.]" N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. The statute is to be liberally construed to give effect ... and unavoidable conflict with the CFA's statutory price disclosure, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5, or its overarching surveillance of sharp business practices. Prohibiting ... fails to state a viable CFA claim. Dugan argues that N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5 is the source of her authority, notwithstanding the more ... to -25 (UPDA), which TGIF says trumps Dugan's claim. N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.5 provides: It shall be an unlawful practice for ...
docket: a3098-10
court: NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided: 2011-10-25
status: unpublished
citation:
Document Size: 47596
13 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/supreme/a-89-18.opn.html -- rank: 746
... by the common law or statutes of this State.” N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.13. (pp. 18-20) 4. Said differently, if a claim ... with the sale . . . of any merchandise or real estate.” N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. “Merchandise” is broadly defined to “include any objects ... by the common law or statutes of this State.” N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.13. Courts are therefore reluctant “to undermine 10 the ... product had never failed may be brought under the CFA, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 (identifying as 19 actionable a “misrepresentation or the knowing ... by the common law or statutes of this State.” N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.13. Said differently, if a claim is based on deceptive ... the CFA supplements any other right or remedy available. See N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.13. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor ...
docket:
court:
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size: 50079
14 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a2546-16a5399-16a5668-16.opn.html -- rank: 733
... the unlawful practice.' Lee, 203 N.J. at 521 (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, -19). Thus, to obtain relief under the CFA, a consumer ...
docket:
court: NJ Superior Court Law/Chancery Division
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size: 66771
15 Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp. -- rank: 730
... unconscionable practices in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. In particular, plaintiff claimed that defendants, knowing that she did ... person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby. [ N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 (emphasis added).] The term “advertisement” is defined, in pertinent ... activity falling within the coverage of the CFA. Ibid. ; accord N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. Under the CFA, “ [a]ny person who suffers any ... sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate.” N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. Extending credit and loan packing are covered by the CFA ... the “subsequent performance” of the loan to Diaz, see N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, because that loan merged into the final foreclosure judgment, see ... subsequent performance” in connection with the extension of credit. See N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 (prohibiting fraud “in connection with” “subsequent performance” ...
docket: A-99-09
court: NJ Supreme Court
decided: 2011-08-29
status:
citation:
Document Size: 99558
 Page:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 25 Next 15
Powered by Swish-e swish-e.org

Valid HTML 4.01!